Noise Mapp.
2016; 3:247–263
Research Article
Karmele Herranz-Pascual*, Igone García, Itziar Aspuru, Itxasne Díez, and Álvaro Santander
Progress in the understanding of soundscape:
objective variables and objectifiable criteria that
predict acoustic comfort in urban places
DOI 10.1515/noise-2016-0017
Received May 24, 2016; accepted Aug 10, 2016
Abstract: The overall aim of this research was to find a
group of easy-to-access variables, that are measurable or
assessable, and which help predict acoustic comfort in ur-
ban places, in order to make further progress in develop-
ing a soundscape indicator based on indices readily avail-
able in urban environments. Our main conceptual frame-
work has been the Environmental Experience Model and
the ISO of Soundscape, together with the most up-to-date
information and technology, where parameters that influ-
ence the soundscape and comfort in urban public places
have been identified. This work has been undertaken as
part of the CITI-SENSE project. A viable technical and pro-
cedural solution was designed and tested in a field demon-
stration, where 53 people were engaged to provide 120 ob-
servations in the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, using environmen-
tal sensors connected to a smartphone. The results were
analysed and are discussed here with the aim of defining
an indicator that permits an easy evaluation of acoustic
comfort in urban places. The results presented in this ar-
ticle are considered a step forward in the development of
a soundscape indicator based on indices readily available
in urban environments. The limitations of the findings are
also discussed, as are suggestions for further research.
Keywords: soundscape; environmental perception; acous-
tic comfort; acoustic predictors
*Corresponding Author: Karmele Herranz-Pascual: Tec-
nalia Research & Innovation c/ Geldo – Parque Tecnológico
de Bizkaia – Edificio 700, 48160 Derio-Bizkaia (Spain); Email:
karmele.herranz@tecnalia.com
Igone García, Itziar Aspuru, Itxasne Díez, Álvaro Santander:
Tecnalia Research & Innovation c/ Geldo – Parque Tecnológico de
Bizkaia – Edificio 700, 48160 Derio-Bizkaia (Spain)
© 2016 K. Herranz-Pascual et al., published by De Gruyter Open.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Open Access
1 Introduction
The aim of this research was to find easy-to-access vari-
ables that best explain the acoustic comfort people feel
when they use open urban environments. It tries to con-
tribute to the definition of an indicator of acoustic comfort
for a place to be applied in studies about urban noise. A
possible indicator of urban acoustic comfort is the pleas-
antness people associated with the sound in the local ur-
ban environment, i.e., the soundscape. We understand
soundscape as being the perception of the sound environ-
ment by the people and communities that use the urban
space. Therefore, to study urban acoustic comfort the fo-
cus of this work is the objective and objectifiable variables
in the environment that best predict this experience, i.e.,
we focus on the concept of “place”, a closely related con-
cept that is integrated into what the ISO of soundscape
calls “context” [1].
In order to do this, the topics covered in this introduc-
tion are: the concepts of soundscape and acoustic com-
fort and the model of environmental experience from Her-
ranz et al. [2] as a way of approaching soundscape study.
Important within this is the study of the urban environ-
ment where it generates a particular sound environment,
and which, when perceived by users, is transformed into
soundscape. In our approach, this environment, what is
known as ’place’ in the previous model of environmental
experience, includes both acoustic and, of course, non-
acoustic variables.
1.1 Soundscape and acoustic comfort:
concepts
Addressing acoustic comfort requires the adoption of a
soundscape approach [3]. Acoustic comfort is a key part
of the general public’s environmental experience of ur-
ban places and, for this reason; it affects their enjoy-
ment and use of these spaces. The user’s perception of
248 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.
an area’s soundscape determines their acoustic comfort in
that place.
In the field of acoustics it is not usual to centre on the
concept of comfort. And when this does happen, a defini-
tion parallel to thermal comfort is used, considering it to
be perception that comes through the sense of hearing [3].
In our comprehensive approach, we consider it more ap-
propriate to focus on the concept of soundscape [4–7], a
much more evolved concept that integrates both physical
and perceptual perspectives. Because that, it is necessary
to develop new cross-modal approaches to the apprehen-
sion of space, taking into account the complexity of the
relationship between humans and the environment.
The standard ISO 12913-1 Acoustics – Soundscape –
Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework [1], is based
on the notion of “soundscape” as an acoustic analogy of
"landscape", understanding it as a perceptual construct
and a physical phenomenon. Additionally, there is evi-
dence of interaction between the acoustic and visual at-
tributes of a place [8–10].
The soundscape can be understood as a perceptual
construction. The literature distinguishes between the
physical phenomenon (acoustic environment) and its per-
ceptual construct (soundscape). The acoustic environ-
ment of a place is the sound from all sources that could
be heard by someone in that place, and depends on the
sources present, the location of the receiver, and the con-
ditions along the propagation path. Each of these may vary
from instant to instant, from day to night, and from season
to season [11]. In contrast, the soundscape of a place is a
person’s perceptual construct of the acoustic environment
of that place [11]. That is, the soundscape is defined as the
way people perceive, experience, or understand the acous-
tic environment in a physical setting (place or context in
the ISO).
The conceptual framework of the soundscape de-
scribes the process of perception, which is articulated
around seven general concepts and relationships: 1) con-
text, 2) sound sources, 3) acoustic environment, 4) audi-
tory sensation, 5) interpretation of auditory sensation, 6)
responses, and 7) results [5].
1.2 The role of place: a conceptual model of
environmental experience
The soundscape has the potential, within a particular
place or context, to evoke responses in the individual and
may result in outcomes that can be attributed to it. The per-
ception of the soundscape, along with any responses and
outcomes, are highly dependent on the context [11].
As Brown and collaborators said in the first chap-
ter [11] of Soundscape and the Built Environment [5], con-
text is a generic term that includes all other non-acoustic
components of a place (even a person’s previous experi-
ence and memories), and plays a major role in a person’s
perceptual construction of a soundscape. They go on to
say: “But that diagram was short on detail as to what those
contextual components might be. Herranz-Pascual et al.
(2010) have addressed this problem and situate environ-
mental experience of sounds in public places firmly within
an environmental people–activity–place framework” [11].
In every environment-person relationship, a set of psy-
chological and physiological mechanisms are triggered
enabling us to gather and obtain information about the
place. The sensations received are integrated into con-
tent and meaning units that enable us to recognise, com-
pare or explore the environment. We experience sensa-
tions and emotions and we act accordingly by integrating
personal motivations and interests. We appreciate envi-
ronmental characteristics and social content arising from
the place [12, 13]. In short, we have an environmental ex-
perience.
This model [2] combines a review of the latest research
related to soundscape and Tecnalia’s experience in psy-
chosocial perception and assessment studies of urban en-
vironments (noise, thermal comfort, odour, soundscape,
etc.). The first conclusion of this review is that the factors
for studying soundscapes can be grouped into three main
categories: context, person, and activities [14]. However,
in order to include relevant interactions and increase clar-
ity and simplicity (i.e., parsimony), our model is organised
into five dimensions: person, place, person-place interac-
tion, activity, and the environmental experience itself (see
Figure 1). This conceptual framework will be used to iden-
tify the parameters that influence the soundscape in urban
public spaces.
Although methods have been proposed for assessing
soundscape, involving complex analyses of objective data
representing the public’s perception of an acoustic envi-
ronment, the importance of previous experiences and re-
lationships with the places, as well as the physical charac-
teristics of the space, make it essential to gather users’ real,
in situ perceptions of spaces in order to assess the sound-
scape.
All the elements of the environment identified in the
model of environmental experience influence soundscape
and therefore all of them can, in this case, be considered
the “context” or “place”.
The “place”, as defined in the model, is very influ-
ential in the integrated framework. The “place” and its
elements may condition the activities that are developed
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic) |
Figure 1: Conceptual model (summarised) of environmental experi-
ence for studying soundscape, from Herranz-Pascual et al. [2].
Figure 2: Elements that define the “place” in the conceptual model
of environmental experience from Herranz-Pascual et al. [2].
in these spaces and therefore, the communities that will
make use of them. This consideration is especially relevant
when the analysed place belongs to the network of urban
public spaces.
The major parts of the elements that define a “place”
have a transversal character: aesthetic, acoustic and so on.
The challenge here is to identify the relative importance
of each of these features in order to identify which vari-
ables have greater influence and are more relevant when
describing the experience that citizens and visitors have
in their interaction with a space and its sound, and there-
fore should be prioritised when constructing an acoustic
comfort indicator, as discussed below.
It is also necessary to draw up a new version of the
model that includes the social content characterising each
of the places and which also determines people’s experi-
ences of places.
249
1.3 Soundscape: highlighting the context or
place
The perception of environmental sound in a specific place
(soundscape) is defined, not only considering the acous-
tic aspects, aspects, but also aesthetics, climatic factors,
that is named by “context” (in terms of soundscape ISO)
and the interactions among their elements [2]. Neverthe-
less, community characteristics relating to cultural, social
and personal aspects influence this acoustic perception
and the linked environmental experience.
There is some interesting literature that highlights the
importance of context or place that focuses on the rela-
tive importance of the different variables involved in the
soundscape approach [1, 2, 5, 11, 15, 16]. The conclusions
of these studies highlight the fact that elements related to
visual dimension, safety, cleanness, and so on are more
relevant in the general environmental place-experience,
as they could have important relative significance, than
the acoustic dimension and, in particular, when consid-
ering soundscape and quietness. There are many refer-
ences that highlight the relevance of context or place in
the soundscape approach (e.g., landscape [8, 10, 15, 16],
thermal conditions, maintenance, and cleanness), as well
as the characteristics of the person or community (e.g.,
culture and personal characteristics), since these aspects
have a remarkable influence on the perception process [2,
17, 18].
There is increasing evidence that the congruence be-
tween the different elements of a place is important in hu-
man preference [19], and also that these elements influ-
ence the expectations of the place [11].
From an acoustician’s point of view, many studies
have focused on identifying the most relevant acoustic in-
dicators for describing soundscape. L50 and L10 -L90 pa-
rameters, psychoacoustic indices, and other aspects have
been analysed. Combinations of these indicators and per-
ception information have also been used to represent or
evaluate soundscape (e.g., matrix charts, LAeq with visual
dimension, and scope) [20]. Currently, there is no scientific
consensus on a common method for evaluating sound-
scape using acoustic parameters even though the concept
is already defined [5] and there is greater scientific accord
from the perception approach.
More recent analysis shows that urban soundscapes
can be characterised by their soundmarks and that per-
ceptions of these are dominated by acoustic comfort, vi-
sual images, and day lighting. Spatial impressions such as
openness and density also emerged as variables in sound-
scape perception [21].
250 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.

As the soundscape concept deals with the perception

of acoustic environments by communities [22], percep-
tion is usually evaluated by distributing questionnaires
to understand how citizens perceive urban spaces, such
as semantic scales with descriptions of the acoustic en-
vironments [5], and questions about the pleasantness of
sound sources [23]. So, it has been recognised that the
public must participate in the soundscape evaluation pro-
cess [24]. In published studies, the information had to
be post-processed in order to facilitate interpretation and
make the data useful for decision-making purposes. Other
studies identified three components of soundscape that
explain the most significant part of the variance: pleasant-
Figure 3: The CITI SENSE kit for the observations.
ness, eventfulness, and familiarity [18].
Considering this framework, this paper analyses the
contribution to the description and prediction of the technologies (ICT), and societal involvement. The CO are
acoustic comfort of an urban place of the following fac- intended to promote the citizens’ contributions as active
tors: physical variables of the place (including landscape), participation in environmental governance [27, 28].
acoustic characteristics, sound source composition, and In this project Tecnalia has designed a tool to assess
presence of sound events. This is the main purpose of this acoustic comfort based on a kit and protocol to measure
study as a previous step to define an acoustic comfort in- sound levels and evaluate perception (using an embed-
dicator. ded questionnaire that is filled in at the same time the mea-
The analytical method used is presented in the follow- surement is done). The kit provides easily-interpretable
ing section. data by combining the results of the two approaches (ob-
jective and subjective measurements) [29].
The protocol determines how citizens can obtain si-
multaneous objective and subjective data on site. The ob-
2 Methods servation combines an evaluation of acoustic indicators
and a perceptual analysis of the acoustic environment. The
The method applied in this paper is based on the use of
combination of physical acoustic measurements and the
a tool that allows citizens to make on-site acoustic com-
perception of the soundscape enrich the assessment, and
fort assessments by simultaneously collecting objective
the tool collects pairs of objective and subjective data that
and subjective measurements. The tool was developed by
increase the understanding of how places are perceived by
Tecnalia in the framework of the CITI-SENSE EU project¹.
users.
The overarching intention of this project is to develop “cit-
The data collection method corresponds roughly to
izens’ observatories” (CO) designed to empower citizens
that described in ISO 12913:2 on soundscape, which is still
to contribute to and participate in environmental gover-
in draft form [30].
nance and enable them to support and influence com-
The kit developed for making observations of urban
munity and societal priorities and the associated deci-
comfort in the CITI-SENSE project involves the use of a
sion making [25, 26]. The CITI-SENSE project is based on
smartphone [31] (with an internal service that allows it to
three fundamental concepts: technological platforms for
act as a sonometer), as well as an external microphone pro-
distributed monitoring, information and communication
tected with a wind screen, since the mobile’s internal one
has certain restrictions with regard to taking acoustic mea-
surements outdoors (see Figure 3).
1 CITI-SENSE is a FP VII EU co-funded project. CITI-SENSE started in A smartphone device was selected as the main ele-
October 2012 and lasts for a period of four years. The consortium is ment of the kit as it is currently the most common portable
led by NILU (Norwegian Institute for Air Research) and comprises 27 device available to citizens. The mobile application run-
partners from 11 European countries (Norway, the Netherlands, the
ning on the smartphone (hereafter referred to as the app),
Czech Republic, Spain, the UK, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Serbia, Bel-
gium, and Slovenia) and 4 non-European partners. The consortium
guides the participant to make an “observation”, by fol-
combines the expertise of research centres and companies that de- lowing a proposed experimental protocol.The app was de-
velop sensors and sensor devices. signed to measure global LAeq ,1sec levels, as several acous-
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic)
Figure 4: Map of Vitoria showing the locations of the 4 urban spaces.
tic indicators can be constructed from this parameter. As
part of the measurement, the time history is registered
and shown on the screen of the smartphone, as is the
global average level LAeq ,T , and the maximum and min-
imum LAeq ,1sec levels during the measurement period. As
well as this, the app detects noise events by applying a dy-
namic threshold principle, and when an event is detected
it asks the participant to provide evaluations accordingly
(e.g., pleasantness and type of noise source).
An acoustic event it is defined as a maximum in the
registered signal. For that reason it has to be detected
an increase and a decrease on the signal. In order to de-
tect the event, noise levels equivalent to the previous and
subsequent five seconds to the instant measurement time
are calculated. A subtraction between each 5s equivalent
noise level and the instant level is carried out, for defin-
ing the level of the upward and downward slope of the
registered signal. Then, both levels are compared with a
fixed threshold value. If both values are higher than 6.5 dB
(fixed value) the event has been detected. The fixed thresh-
old value was defined based on the expertise to identify
events both in noisy or quiet environments.
| 251
The app processes the data measured (LAeq,T , max
LAeq,1s , min LAeq,1s , the number of events and predomi-
nant noise sources assessed as positive or negative by the
person) to show the result of the evaluation on the screen,
as soon as the observation is completed. The observers re-
ceive easily-interpretable feedback on their evaluation.
By post-processing the measured data, other acoustic
parameters are calculated, such as L10 , L50 , L90 , L10 -L90 ,
and the balance between positive and negative events. Fi-
nally, there are twelve acoustic parameters quantified per
observation.
In a previous paper, Aspuru et al. [31] provided de-
tails of the methods and tools used for empowering citi-
zens in the assessment of acoustic comfort in outdoor pub-
lic spaces, analysing the accuracy of the values measured.
One of the most interesting aspects of this method for
the purposes of this paper is the questionnaire designed
to assess acoustic urban comfort that is deployed via the
app.
252 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.
2.1 Questionnaire
The Urban Comfort questionnaire applied in the CITI-
SENSE project collects information from 100 variables
structured into two parts. Those most relevant for the ob-
jectives of this article are the following:
1. General questions to be answered before any ob-
servations are made in the urban places. This sec-
tion includes the following items:
• Personal factors (29 variables): sociodemo-
graphic variables, residential factors, percep-
tion of self-health and emotions, life style
factors, and psychosocial factors. These vari-
ables allow the sample to be characterised.
• Previous experiences (41 variables) or assess-
ment of urban spaces and information on how
participants use them: before making any ob-
servations in the urban areas proposed, they
are asked to report on how they habitually use
the places, including frequency and time of
use (day, week, season), and so on.
2. Actual experiences in places (30 variables): ques-
tions to be answered in situ in each observed area
and at the same time as the objective variables are
measured. The questionnaire includes the following
aspects:
• Global experience and perception of the place:
general perception of the place is measured
by applying a semantic differential (SD) that
contains items such as: pleasant, secure, well-
maintenance, natural, tranquil and warm (5
point scale). SD is defined according to gen-
eral criteria [32]. The participant is also asked
about what they like most and least about the
place, and they can upload photos of the ur-
ban elements that influence their perception.
There are also questions about global acous-
tic and thermal comfort at the time of the ob-
servation, and perceived emotions and level
of stress at the beginning and end of the ex-
perience. Finally, there are questions on cer-
tain specific variables in order to find out what
type of activities they would carry out in the
area, for instance if they would use the place
for relaxing in.
• Sound environment perception or soundscape:
participants are asked about their perception
and evaluation of the environmental sounds
and the global acoustic atmosphere, as well
as their evaluation of the congruence of the
sounds with the urban place. The soundscape
is evaluated using a SD [32] that contains
items such as: pleasant, calm, relaxing, nat-
ural, vibrant, informative, and clear (5 point
scale). The wording of this scale is: Now, could
you describe the sound environment from
your point of view (using pairs of adjectives)?
Value 1 means pleasant, 5 means unpleasant
and 3 means neither.
• Acoustic comfort: People are asked directly
about the acoustic comfort of the place. The
wording of this scale is: “Could you indicate
what your acoustic comfort degree is with the
following aspects of this place? Value 1 means
very low, 2 low, 3 medium, 4 high, and 5 very
high.
The architecture of the system that allows the data col-
lected in the observations to be uploaded to a server to
build a database is not described in this article [26]. The
database contains sets of objective and subjective data col-
lected simultaneously on site.
2.2 Case study
As part of the CITI-SENSE project, a demonstrative exercise
was carried out in the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain), con-
sisting of inviting citizens to conduct observations on the
quality of four public spaces using the tool designed for
collecting environmental data and also their perceptions
of nine areas in those spaces.
The urban spaces which were evaluated are (Figure 5):
• Calle Los Herran (bus station area): the city’s cen-
tral bus station was previously located in this space.
The area is surrounded by high traffic flow roads and
is close to a school.
• Parque Salinillas de Buradón: this park is situated
in a new urban area and is on a small hill, close to
the city’s green belt. At the moment, this park has
no vegetation.
• Plaza de la Constitución: this public space is situ-
ated next to the northern entrance to the city. To the
left of the square is a relatively green, calm street.
• Parque Olarizu: the park is part of the city’s green
ring and the Environmental Research Centre (CEA)
is located here, which receives thousands of visitors
during the year. Some of those visitors spend the day
in the surrounding area.
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic)
Calle Los Herran
Plaza de la Constitución
Figure 5: Pictures of the four spaces, indicating the evaluation points (areas).
Two of the spaces have urban characteristics (Los Her-
ran and Constitución) and other two are more natural
(Salinillas and Olarizu).
In each space, two separate areas were assigned, with
the exception of Los Herran where three different areas
were identified, as can be seen in Figure 5. In total nine
areas² were considered (represented by nine evaluation
points).
A method was proposed for characterising each area,
where a set of objective variables related to the quality of
services and the diversity of the place were assessed, as
2 In this document the term “space” is used to mean the public
spaces analysed in the study, “area” refers to the analysis units con-
sidered within these spaces, and “place” is reserved for the locations
in general, where the environmental experiences were had.
| 253
Parque Salinillas
Parque Olarizu
well as the presence of green (GREEN), cultural (BROWN),
and water (BLUE) elements, and their level of artificiality
(GREY), together with the place’s proportion of openness
(% SKY). The maintenance, safety, presence of businesses
(shops), traffic, facilities, and tall vegetation (trees) were
also evaluated. This evaluation involved four levels: 1 low;
2 middle; 3 high; 0 not applicable. In addition, assessment
was made of water, landmarks and heritage, using three
gradations: 0 not present; 1 yes, it can be seen from the
study area; 2 yes, it is part of the study area. A description
of the nine areas of analysis in relation to their physical
and landscape features are shown in Table 1.
The nine areas display a great deal of homogeneity in
terms of maintenance, which is generally high, the pres-
ence of water, landmarks and heritage. In contrast, they
differ widely in terms of security, existence of facilities,
traffic, economic activity, trees and green areas. These dif-
254 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.

Table 1: Description of the four selected spaces (nine areas of observation).

Spaces & areas

Los Herran Constitución Salinillas Olarizu
1 2 middle 3 bus 1 trees 2 middle 1 hill 2 prome- 1 trees 2
north nade lagoon
Evaluation (1)
Maintenance 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3
Security 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2
Shops 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 1
Traflc 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1
Facilities 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1
Trees 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3
Presence (2)
Water 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1
Landmark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Heritage 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Percentage
% GREEN 20 30 20 50 30 90 90 90 60
% BLUE 0 0 0 10 35 0 0 30 15
% SKY 35 30 40 20 40 100 100 100 60
% GREY 85 80 85 40 70 10 10 0 20
(1) Evaluation: 1 low; 2 middle; 3 high; 0 not applicable.
(2) Presence: 0 not present; 1 yes, it can be seen from the study area; 2 yes, it is part of the study area.

ferences are also reflected in the characterisation of the Table 2: Distribution of participants and evaluations in the four
settings in terms of greenness (% GREEN), water (% BLUE) spaces of Citi-Sense project.

and artificiality (%GREY), as well as the openness of the

Spaces evaluations points N user
place (% SKY).
This preliminary analysis seems to indicate the exis- Los Herran (street) 37 3 21
tence of a dichotomy dimension. This dimension was de- Constitución (square) 27 2 20
fined with urbanisation on one side and naturalness on Salinillas (park) 31 2 20
the other. The four areas analysed in the study of urban Olarizu (park) 25 2 20
comfort were ranked in the following way: total 120 9 53

1. Los Herran, the most urbanised space

2. Constitución, an urbanised space teria for selecting participants were fixed by the team of
3. Salinillas, a natural space with sparse vegetation Iritziak Batuz³.
4. Olarizu, the most natural space 20 volunteers were invited to an initial workshop. In
this workshop the project was introduced and the partic-
ipants received specific information about the tasks they
2.3 Participation campaign would be asked to carry out relating to the observation of
urban places. 53 people were ultimately engaged to make
Participants were volunteers recruited from among the cit- field observations in the four urban spaces selected in the
izens of the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, either through their par- city. They made a total of 153 observations (120 valid),
ticipation in civic associations or by direct contact. The cri-

3 Iritziak Batuz is a Spanish consultancy working in the field of pub-

lic participation, governance and social innovation, and which par-
ticipates in the CITI-SENSE consortium and the development of the
Empowerment Initiative in Vitoria-Gasteiz.
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic) | 255

Table 3: Characteristics of the sample group of participants in the demonstrative exercise in Vitoria-Gasteiz and in each space.

N of the sample 37 27 31 25 120

Spaces Los Herran Constitución Salinillas Olarizu % TOTAL freq Differences
Women 51.4% 55.6% 58.1% 56.0% 55.0% 66 ns
Living in Vitoria - 91.9% 77.8% 93.5% 100.0% 90.8% 109 *
Gasteiz
University studies 38.9% 43.4% 48.4% 46.0% 44.5% 53 ns
Secondary studies 50.0% 29.6% 35.5% 36.0% 38.7% 46 ns
Employed 30.6% 51.9% 45.2% 40.0% 41.2% 49
*
Unemployed 16.7% 3.7% 12.9% 28.0% 15.1% 18
(*) p<0.05

and each participant evaluated at least two sites. During
the observations, observations, 104 photos were taken and
participants uploaded 215 feedback comments on their
preferences (i.e., 139 positive “most liked elements” and 76
negative “most disliked elements”) plus 52 open questions
(total 267 open comments).
The observations in the four urban spaces were made
from 17 to 30 April, 2015, being scheduled according to the
participants’ availability.
Since the observational procedure is both crucial and
complex, in order to assure that it is applied correctly dur-
ing the demonstrative exercise, the participants were ac-
companied by a member of the team who guided them.
As it is said, simultaneous collection of objective and
subjective data was taken on site. This means that the
duration of the acoustic measurement is the duration of
the experience that the person had at the places. The av-
erage duration of experiences was 12.45 minutes (sd =
6.76), with no significant differences between places. Ex-
periences and, therefore, the objective and subjective mea-
sures were collected, typically, at the hours when places
are most used, that is, between 10:00 and 13:00 in the
morning and between 17:00 and 20:00 in the afternoon.
As it can be seen in Table 3, there are no relevant so-
cial or demographic differences between the people ob-
serving each of the four spaces. Most of the differences be-
tween them are considered non-significant. This could be
due to the small size of the sample. There is only a signifi-
cant difference between spaces when considering residen-
tial area (χ2 = 28.140; df = 15; P<0.05) and working situa-
tion (χ2 = 24.138; df = 12; P<0.05), as shown in Table 3.
It is therefore considered that in this case the compo-
sition of the participant group does not condition the anal-
ysis of the variables that influence the assessment of com-
fort levels made in the four selected spaces.
After the observations had been made, the partici-
pants were invited to a feedback workshop where the re-
sults attained were presented in terms of the evaluations
of each observed urban space. In this workshop an exper-
imental empowerment exercise was conducted where the
24 participants who attended identified the most valuable
elements of the spaces and made suggestions as to how
the spaces could be improved. The attendees positively as-
sessed the overall experience as well as the tool designed
to evaluate environmental quality in urban spaces.
3 Results
The main objective of this research was to discover the
easy-access variables (objectives and objectifiable criteria)
that best explain acoustic comfort in urban places. The
questionnaire used in CITI-SENSE has two indices related
to this:
1. People are asked directly about the acoustic comfort
of the place (CUP-acous hereafter). This item is as-
sessed using an ordinal 5-point scale.
2. Participants provide a measure of pleasantness re-
lating to the sound environment of the place (SSC-
pleasant from now). This item is assessed using a
semantic differential 5-point scale.
Our hypothesis is that both are different ways to as-
sessment the perceived comfort about soundscape, i.e., we
suppose a high correlation between both indices, and both
have similar relationships with other factors.
The results presented in this chapter are structured
into 3 parts. The first one details the descriptive results of
the acoustic and non-acoustic variables, as well as a com-
parison of the results between the nine areas. The second
part involves a correlational analysis using subjective and
objective variables. Finally, a regression analysis is made
in order to propose an indicator of acoustic urban comfort
256 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.

based on a number of objective variables or objectifiable sound level is higher due to traffic, but also to the
criteria, i.e., easy access. presence of a fountain with water jets.
3. In Salinillas, the second most natural place, the
mean sound levels are lower (45-53 dBA), and the
3.1 Descriptive results balance between positive and negative perceived
events is positive, although low.
The database contains 120 observations or environmental 4. Olarizu is the most natural space. Over a very
experiences made by 53 participants who evaluated 9 ur- low sound background there are perceivable events
ban places (areas) in 4 public spaces in Vitoria-Gasteiz. caused by the natural world (birdsong and wind) as
Table 4 shows the mean values of the acoustic pa- well as social activity.
rameters measured and calculated for the global sample
In urbanised areas there are fewer events because the
and for each area. For most of the parameters, significant
background sound is higher, while in more natural ar-
differences were detected (p<0.05) between areas, except
eas more events are recognised because the level of back-
for the max LAeq,1s and the variable that represents the
ground sound is lower, and additionally the perceived bal-
perceived pleasantness of the second most predominant
ance is positive.
sound source (non-significant differences).
The urban-natural dimension also means differences
A notable result is the mean difference between L10 -
in the perception of landscape (LSC), soundscape (SSC)
L90 , which is greater than 10 in the three Los Herran areas.
and acoustic comfort (CUP-acous). So, the most positive
L10 -L90 is often used to give a quantitative measure of the
perception is in Olarizu Park, the most natural space,
spread or “choppiness” of the sound (noise climate). When
while Los Herran Street is perceived as the most negative
the value of this index is greater than 10 it indicates that
or the least positive place (Table 5). The differences be-
the acoustic levels fluctuate a lot, i.e., in general and with-
tween areas are all significant, except in the perception of
out taking into account the type of predominant sound,
vibrancy of soundscape.
usually associated with less comfort.
These results also influence the activities people
The high values of this indicator in place 1 of Olarizu
would carry out in the space, so all people consider Olarizu
may be due to the proximity of this place to an industrial
a good place to relax in, while Los Herran is only consid-
building and nearby traffic.
ered good for relaxing in by one in every four participants.
The results indicate that the mean values of LAeq,T ,
minLAeq,1s , and L90 are lower in Salinillas and Olarizu,
which are the more natural places. Being quieter, more
3.2 Correlation analysis
events are detected in these places, which are mainly
perceived as positive. In contrast, in the more urbanised
The correlation between acoustic variables is shown in Ta-
places (Los Herran and Constitución), the mean values of
ble 6. LAeq,T and the percentile parameters correlate well
maxLAeq,1s and L10 are higher.
(r=0.83 with L50 ). The correlations are also high between
In quiet places, or those with a pleasant view, the re-
percentiles (L10 , L50 and L90 ).
lationship between perceived positive and negative events
As mentioned above, in general most of the sound
(balance) is positive, while the balance is negative or neu-
events detected are positive, mainly associated with calm
tral in noisy places. The mean balance between the per-
places, when the sound levels are very low. Therefore,
ceptions of the two most characteristic sound sources is
there is high positive correlation between the balance of
also influenced by the natural characteristic of the places,
events and number of positive events (r = 0.82).
being clearly positive in the most natural space (Olarizu),
The total number of events, in this case mostly pos-
and negative in the most artificial space (Los Herran).
itive, is related mainly to L10 -L90 , confirming the results
These results appear to be ordered around a bipolar
of other studies. It is also associated with the background
factor of the urban versus natural character of the spaces:
level (L90); i.e., lower levels of noise are associated with a
1. Los Herran, the most urbanised space, has mean higher number of events.
noise levels in the range of 53–62 dBA and the main The relationship between acoustic indices and percep-
sound sources are perceived as negative. tion factors are lower, as can be seen in the following table
2. Constitución, the second most urbanised place, is (Table 7).
an urban space with a big green area, and tall, old The pleasantness associated with the main sound
trees that invite you to relax. In the middle area the source is associated positively with the number of posi-
Table 4: Compared means of acoustic variables in function of areas analysed.

Spaces & areas

Los Herran Constitución Salinillas Olarizu Global
1 north 2 middle 3 bus 1 trees 2 middle 1 hill 2 promenade 1 trees 2 lagoon MEAN MIN MAX
Experience time (min)* 11.37 9.06 14.06 10.15 15.56 9.18 16.53 11.11 15.97 12.45 4.4 39.9
LAeq,T * 61 60 62 61 67 53 53 57 51 58 44 73
maxLAeq,1s 73 71 75 75 76 68 71 73 70 72 54 97
minLAeq,1s * 48 48 49 55 62 44 43 43 40 48 34 69
L10 * 64 63 65 62 68 54 53 57 50 59 46 73
L50 * 58 58 60 59 67 49 47 49 45 54 40 73
L90 * 53 52 53 57 65 46 45 45 42 51 37 72
L10 -L90 * 11 12 11 5 3 8 8 11 8 9 1 29
N total events* 1.84 0.85 1.70 1.19 0.80 5.83 8.82 8.00 7.75 4.28 0 28
N positive events* 0.69 0.23 0.80 0.88 0.70 3.46 6.71 6.85 4.17 2.90 0 26
N negative events* 1.15 0.62 0.90 0.29 0.10 2.15 2.12 1.15 3.58 1.36 0 15
Events balance* −0.46 −0.38 −0.10 0.56 0.60 1.50 4.59 5.69 0.58 1.55 −10.0 +26
Pleasant main sound source* 2.23 1.92 1.55 3.12 3.90 3.21 3.59 4.31 4.58 3.17 1 5
Pleasant second sound source 2.62 3.23 2.55 3.12 2.70 2.64 2.59 3.38 3.00 2.88 1 5
Sound sources balance* −1.15 −0.85 −1.91 0.24 0.60 −0.14 0.18 1.69 1.58 0.04 −4 +4
(*) p<0.05
Table 5: Compared Landscape (LSC) and Soundscape (SSC) perception in the nine areas (scale 1-5).

Spaces & areas

Los Herran Constitución Salinillas Olarizu
1 north 2 middle 3 bus 1 trees 2 middle 1 hill 2 promenade 1 trees 2 lagoon TOTAL
CUP Acoustic* 2.62 2.23 2.00 3.00 2.90 3.86 3.88 4.15 3.92 3.22
SSC Pleasant* 1.85 1.92 1.91 3.06 3.10 3.21 3.76 4.15 4.25 3.06
SSC Quiet* 1.92 1.62 1.45 2.82 3.30 3.50 3.76 3.92 3.92 2.95
SSC Relaxing* 2.69 2.08 2.00 3.12 3.50 3.71 3.94 4.08 4.17 3.28
SSC Vibrant 2.69 2.54 2.55 2.82 2.70 3.07 3.29 3.31 3.08 2.92
SSC Funny* 2.31 2.38 2.36 2.76 2.90 2.79 3.35 3.62 3.83 2.93
SSC Natural* 2.23 2.00 1.55 2.59 2.70 3.00 3.65 4.54 4.42 2.99
SSC Congruence* 3.38 3.08 2.64 3.59 3.50 3.64 3.65 4.15 4.25 3.56
Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic)

LSC Pleasant* 2.77 2.54 3.09 3.82 3.80 3.86 3.82 4.54 4.83 3.68
LSC Quiet* 2.15 1.77 1.91 3.41 3.10 4.07 4.06 4.46 4.00 3.28
LSC Natural* 2.62 2.23 2.27 2.53 2.60 3.00 3.65 4.54 4.67 3.13
Use for relaxing* 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.76 0.50 0.64 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.63
| 257

(*) p<0.05
Table 6: Pearson correlations between acoustic variables.

LAeq,T max min L10 L50 L90 L10 -L90 N N positive N negative Events
LAeq,1s LAeq,1s events events events balance
LAeq,T 1
max LAeq,1s 0.73** 1
min LAeq,1s 0.69** 0.25** 1
L10 0.92** 0.49** 0.70** 1
L50 0.83** 0.33** 0.88** 0.91** 1
L90 0.75** 0.28** 0.97** 0.80** 0.95** 1
0.22* 0.30** .27** 1
258 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.

L10 -L90 −0.47** −0.37**

N∘ events 0.30** −0.43** −0.44** −0.46** 0.45** 1
∘
n positive events 0.28** −0.42** −0.42** −0.45** 0.49** 0.89** 1
n∘ negative events −0.22* −0.24** −0.23* 0.66** 0.24* 1
Events balance −.28** −0.27** −0.30** .39** 0.47** 0.82** −0.36**
(*) p<0.05; (*) p<0.01;
Table 7: Pearson correlation between acoustic and subjective variables (landscape & soundscape).

LAeq,T Max min L10 L50 L90 L10 -L90 N N positive Events
LAeq,1s LAeq,1s events events balance
Pleasant with main sound −0.18 −0.35** −0.37** −0.24** 0.38** 0.39** 0.28**
source
Pleasant with secondary
sound source
Balance of sound sources −0.29** −0.33** −0.24** 0.30** 0.34** 0.28**
CUP-acoustic −0.18* −0.21* −0.21*
SSC-pleasant −0.21* −0.27** −0.24** −0.21*
SSC-quiet −0.21* −0.22*
SSC-relax −0.22* −0.28** −0.22*
SSC v-vibrant
SSC -funny −0.21* −0.19*
SSC -natural −0.19* −0.24** −0.24**
SSC -congruent −0.21* −0.21* −0.19* −0.25** −0.25**
LSC-pleasant −0.18*
LSC -quiet
LSC -natural −0.23* −0.19* −0.20*
Use for relaxing −0.19* −0.24** −0.18* −0.22*
(*) p<0.05; (**) p<0.01
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic)
tive events and the balance between positive and negative
events; it is negatively associated with percentiles of noise
level (L10 , L50 , L90 ). Therefore, low noise levels allowed a
greater perception of positive events and this means peo-
ple found the main sound sources pleasant.
LAeq,T and L10 are inversely related with the pleasant-
ness of the landscape. In addition, there are significant
negative correlations between the naturalness of the land-
scape and L10 , L50 and L10 -L90 . All of these correlations
are negative, indicating that sound levels reduce the posi-
tive perception of a landscape as pleasant and natural, and
also reduce the possibilities of undertaking relaxing activ-
ities in that place (“use relax”).
Noise levels (LAeq,T , L10 and L50 ) also have a signifi-
cant relationship with the perception of a soundscape as
being pleasant, as well as certain other soundscape char-
acteristics such as it being quiet, relaxing, fun and natural.
All these relationships are negative, indicating that a good
perception of the soundscape is associated with low sound
levels (Table 7).
The perception of acoustic comfort (CUP-acous) is re-
lated to acoustic indices, with LAeq,T , L10 and L50 being the
most relevant, while the pleasantness of a soundscape is
associated to L10 -L90 .
The most remarkable result is the lack of a relation-
ship between events and acoustic perception. Based on
the literature, it was expected that there would be a cor-
relation between events and perception of sound environ-
ment. However, in our study the number of events and
their assessment (pleasant or unpleasant) had no signif-
icant relationship with the participants’ perception of the
place and its soundscape. In fact, the fluctuation of sound
levels or noise climate (L10 -L90 ) is inversely related to the
pleasantness and quietness of the soundscape and the nat-
uralness of the landscape.
Finally, Table 8 shows the correlation between sub-
jective factors, which display a close relationship between
the items from the same scale: landscape and soundscape.
Other close relationships can be seen between perception
of comfort (CUPacous), soundscape and landscape, and
also between the use of the place to relax, soundscape and
landscape.
The most strongly related variables are those of acous-
tic urban comfort, and the pleasantness and relaxing char-
acter of the sound environment. The first two correspond
to the subjective indicator of acoustic comfort.
| 259
3.3 Regression analysis
Here the data is analysed to identify the variables that best
explain acoustic comfort in urban places.
In the CITI-SENSE project, two indices can be used
to define this construct: the perception of acoustic urban
comfort (CUP-acous), and the pleasantness of the sound
environment (SSC-pleasant). As SSC-pleasant correlates
well with CUPacous (r = 0.73; p<0.01), and their relation-
ships with other factor are similar, here we consider the
pleasantness of the acoustic environment (SSCpleasant)
as the index that defines acoustic comfort. Therefore, the
following regression analyses use SSCpleasant (hereafter
soundscape) as a dependent variable.
Table 9 presents the regression analysis by groups of
variables.
The variable that best explains soundscape is the
congruence between soundscape (SSC) and landscape
(SSC/LSC congruence); this accounts for more than 20%
of the variance.
Other variables that explain soundscape in the inde-
pendent analysis are: the highest percentile level (L10 )
(16.4% of variance), followed by the presence of traffic
at the place (12.7% of variance), how pleasant the main
sound source is perceived (7.1% of variance), and the
acoustic parameter LAeq,T (4.1% of variance, from now
“%vz”).
As stated above, the presence of acoustic events has
no relationship with soundscape.
Table 10 shows the results of the regression analysis
with all the acoustic factors as independent variables.
The acoustic factors that account for a significant per-
centage of variance in soundscape are, in order, pleas-
antness of the main sound source, L10 -L90 , L50 , and min
LAeq,1s . These variables account for 18.3% of the sound-
scape variance.
Table 11 shows the results of regression analysis with
all acoustic and non-acoustic factors as independent vari-
ables.
Remember that the aim of the study was to find a
group of easily-accessible variables or those that can be
quantified as realistically as possible (objectifiable). The
variable that best explains soundscape is the congruence
between soundscape (SSC) and landscape (SSC/LSC con-
gruence). Other relevant variables are related to the phys-
ical characteristics of place, such as the percentage of
water (%BLUE), and presence of traffic (ENV_traffic), as
well as an acoustic index associated with the acoustic cli-
mate (L10 -L90 ), which has a significant correlation with the
events: r = 0.50). These four factors account for 35.9% of
the variance in soundscape.
Table 8: Correlation between subjective variables: comfort, landscape, soundscape and use.

FR1_ pleasant FR2_ pleasant FR_Matrix CUP-Acus SSC_pleasant SSC_ quiet SSC_ relax SSC_ vibrant
FR2_pleasant 1
FR2_pleasant 1
FR_Matrix 0.80** 0.70** 1
CUP-Acous 0.25** 1
SSC_ pleasant 0.28** 0.73** 1
SSC_quiet 0.27** 0.74** 0.84** 1
260 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.

SSC_relax 0.28** 0.75** 0.84** 0.83** 1

SSC_vibrant 0.31** 0.35** 0.33** 1
SSC_funny 0.41** 0.61** 0.58** 0.53** 0.50**
SSC_natural 0.60** 0.69** 0.71** 0.66** 0.53**
SC-congruent 0.46** 0.47** 0.35** 0.47**
LSC-pleasant 0.25** 0.60** 0.68** 0.64** 0.59**
LSC-quiet 0.24** 0.75** 0.74** 0.80** 0.73** 0.26**
LSC-natural 0.54** 0.58** 0.64** 0.53** 0.43**
Use for relaxing 0.21* 0.61** 0.69** 0.65** 0.62**
SSC_ funny SSC_ natural SSC_ LSC_ pleasant LSC_ quiet LSC_ natural P3_Use for
congruent relaxing
FR2_pleasant
FR2_pleasant
FR_Matrix
CUP-Acous
SSC_ pleasant
SSC_quiet
SSC_relax
SSC_vibrant
SSC_funny 1
SSC_natural 0.64** 1
SC-congruent 0.36** 0.41** 1
LSC-pleasant 0.36** 0.47** 0.26** 1
LSC-quiet 0.42** 0.60** 0.34** 0.60** 1
LSC-natural 0.51** 0.75** 0.22* 0.44** 0.58** 1
Use for relaxing 0.56** 0.56** 0.34** 0.68** 0.56** 0.44** 1
(*) p<0.05; (**) p<0.01
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic) | 261

Table 9: Regression analysis by groups of variables: percentage of explained variance (%vz) in pleasantness of soundscape (SSC-pleasant)
by acoustic and environmental variables.

Included variables SC-pleasant

1. Acoustic Index LAeq,T 1st
% vz 4.10%
2. Acoustic percentiles L10 1st
% vz 16.4%
3. Acoustic events None −→ %vz 0%
4. Valuation of sound sources (in terms of pleasantness Pleasantness of main sound 1st
(SS-pleasant) source
% vz 7.1%
5. Environmental valuation ENV_traflc 1st
% vz 12.7%
6. Soundscape & Landscape congruence SSC/LSC congruence 1st
% vz 20.3%

Table 10: Regression analysis: percentage of explained variance perspective into the subjective one. The best proof of this
(% vz) in pleasantness of soundscape (SSC-pleasant) by acoustic complexity is the fact that the acoustic comfort of a place
variables (objectives and objectifiable criteria).
is best explained by the congruence between the sound-
scape and the landscape perceived by the user of the place.
Included SSC-pleasant
To understand this and its relevance to the welfare and
variables
health of people and communities it is necessary to look
SS1_pleasant 1st (6th OUT)
LAeq,1s , percentiles, at acoustic comfort in greater detail. Acoustic comfort is
L10 -L90 2nd (5∘ OUT)
events, and assess- one of the dimensions of urban comfort, which is under-
L50 3rd
ment of main sound stood as the ability of an urban space to create a pleasant
minLAeq,1s 4th
sources environmental experience for the people who use it, i.e., it
% vz 18.30%
contributes to the health of the population.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from the results
Table 11: Regression analysis: percentage of explained variance presented is the importance of a place’s physical factors,
(%vz) of pleasantness of soundscape (SSC-pleasant) by acoustic
which in the ISO of soundscape is designated as context.
and non-acoustical variables (together) as dependent variables.
It is therefore important to outline a consistent method for
Included variables SSC- defining the non-acoustic characteristics of places. This
pleasant article proposes the first method that identifies the ele-
SSC/LSC 1st ments related to the quality of the spaces (maintenance
All acoustic & non- and safety) and presence of nature, both green and blue
congruence
acoustic variables components, which define the dimension of space and its
ENV_traflc 2nd
(objectives & objec- urban versus natural character. This proposal could be im-
L10 -L90 3rd
tifiable criteria) proved in subsequent versions to include, for example, the
% BLUE 4th
% vz 35.90% social dimension of space, which is not part of this first
proposal.
Another notable result is the low contribution of
sound events to the acoustic comfort of a place, which is
4 Discussion surprising because of the literature that supports this rela-
tionship. This result may be due to the stronger relation-
The main conclusion from the work presented in this pa- ship of soundscape with the L10-L90 parameter, which
per is the complexity of the acoustic comfort of a place. also reflects fluctuations in the sound environment as well
To explain this it is necessary to focus on both the acous- as being related to the number of events. It could also be
tic and non-acoustic variables of that place and their re- due to the method that was used to identify events. The in-
lationships, making it imperative to integrate an objective fluence of events on soundscape will be further analysed
262 | K. Herranz-Pascual et al.
in subsequent studies, including a review of the event-
detection method and an analysis of a greater diversity of
sound environments and urban spaces.
The results presented in this paper constitute an im-
portant step forward in defining an indicator of acoustic
comfort for a place to be applied in outdoor soundscape
studies and in the analysis of urban noise, based on easy-
access variables (objectives and objectifiable criteria). The
pleasantness of the sound environment has been demon-
strated to be a good indicator of the comfort about acous-
tical dimension of urban spaces.
This study has shown how interesting it is to anal-
yse the variables that determine acoustic comfort using
databases of simultaneous, in situ, objective and subjec-
tive evaluations recorded by the users of the spaces. In
this sense, the tool developed in the CITI-SENSE project
provides information that could be useful in further stud-
ies. Tecnalia will expand this study further by analysing
other assessments, and expanding the diversity of urban
spaces and soundscapes. It could also be interesting to de-
sign controlled experiments to determine the importance
of each factor free from contamination by other factors that
are difficult to control in field work.
Acknowledgement: This research was supported by the
CITI-SENSE EU project. CITI-SENSE is a FP VII EU co-
funded project. CITI-SENSE started in October 2012 and
lasts for a period of four years. The consortium is led
by NILU (Norwegian Institute for Air Research) and com-
prises 27 partners from 11 European countries and 4 non-
European partners. The authors would like to thank their
partners in the project, especially project leader Alena
Bartonova and colleagues from Nilu, U-Hopper and Sintef,
who participated in the development of the smartphone
app. Special thanks go to our colleagues at Iritziak Batuz,
who conducted the participant recruitment for the demon-
stration exercise.
References
[1] ISO 12913:1:2014 Acoustics – Soundscape – Part 1: Definition
and conceptual framework.
[2] K. Herranz-Pascual, I. Aspuru, I. García, Proposed Conceptual
Model of Environmental Experience as Framework to Study the
Soundscape, I: Proceedings of Internoise (2010, Lisbon).
[3] K. Herranz-Pascual, L. Gutiérrez, J.A. Acero, I. García, A. San-
tander, I. Aspuru, Environmental comfort as criteria for design-
ing urban places, Architecture, Education and Society (4–6 June
2014, Barcelona).
[4] D. Botteldooren et al. Soundscape of European Cities and
Landscape- Understanding and Exchanging COST Soundscape
WP report, 2013.
[5] J. Kang B. Schulte-Fortkamp, Soundscape and the Built Environ-
ment, Boca Raton, CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), 2016.
[6] C. Palmese, J.L. Carles, The audio—visual city, EURAU 2014,
Composite CitieS, I November 12–14, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey.
[7] J.P. Thibaud, D. Siret, L’ambiance à l’épreuve de l’action, 2nd In-
ternational Congress on Ambiances, Montreal 2012.
[8] J.L. Carles, I.L. Barrio, J.V. de Lucio, Sound influence on land-
scape values, Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999), 191–
200.
[9] J. Ge, K. Hokao, Research on the formation and design of sound-
scape of urban park: Case study of Saga prefecture forest park,
Japan, International Symposium on City Planning, Sapporo,
Japan, 2003.
[10] I. López-Barrio, J.D. Guillén-Rodríguez, Calidad acústica urbana:
influencia de las interacciones audiovisuales en la valoración
del ambiente sonoro, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Hu-
mano, 6 (2005), 101–117.
[11] L. Brown, T. Gjestland, D. Dubois, Acoustic Environments and
Soundscapes. In J. Kang and B. Schulte-Fortkamp (Ed) Sound-
scape and the Built Environment, Boca Raton: CRC Press (Taylor
& Francis Group), 2016, 1–17.
[12] E. Pol, S. Valera, Psicología ambiental y procesos psicosociales.
In J.F. Morales, (Coord.), Psicología Social, McGraw-Hill, Madrid,
1999, 317–334.
[13] J.I. Aragonés, M. Amérigo, (Ed.). Psicología Ambiental, Edi-
ciones Pirámide, Madrid (1998).
[14] P. Lercher, B. Shulte-Fortkamp, The relevance of soundscape re-
search to the assessment of noise annoyance at the community
level of the community, I: Proceedings of the ICBEN 8th Inter-
national Congress On Noise As A Public Health Problem, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, 2003.
[15] C. Lavandier, B. Defréville, The contribution of Sound Source
Characteristics in the Assessment of Urban Soundscapes, Acta
Acustica united with Acustica, 92 (2006), 912–921.
[16] R. Pheasant, K. Horoshenkov, G. Watts, B. Barrett, The acoustic
and visual factors influencing the construction of tranquil space
in urban and rural environments tranquil spaces-quiet places?,
J Acoust Soc Am. 123(3) (2008), 1446–57.
[17] J. Liu, J. Kang, Effect of landscape on soundscape perception
in city parks, Proceedings of the AIA-DAGA 2013 Merano, Italy
(2013).
[18] O. Axelsson, et al., A principal components model of sound-
scape perception, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128 (2010), 2836–2846
[19] G. Brambilla, L. Maffei, Responses to noise in urban parks and
in rural quiet areas. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 92(6)
(2006), 881–886.
[20] P. Lercher, B. Schulte-Fortkamp, Soundscape of European Cities
and Landscapes-Harmonising. Proceedings of the AIA-DAGA
2013 Merano, Italy (2013).
[21] J.Y. Jeon, P.J. Lee, J.Y. Hong, D. Cabrera,Non-auditory factors af-
fecting urban soundscape evaluation, J Acoust Soc Am. 130(6)
(2011), 3761–70. doi: 10.1121/1.3652902.
[22] W. Yang, J. Kang, Acoustic Comfort Evaluation in Urban Open
Public Spaces, Applied Acoustics 66 (2005), 211–229.
[23] D. Dubois, C. Guastavino, M. Raimbault, A Cognitive Approach
to Urban Soundscapes: Using Verbal Data to Access Everyday
Life Auditory Categories, Acta Acustica 92 (2006), 865–874.
[24] C. Lavandier, P. Delaitre, C. Ribeiro, Global and local sound qual-
ity indicators for urban context based on perceptive and acous-
 Understanding Soundscape as an indicator of Urban Comfort (acoustic) |
tic variables, I: Proceedings of the Euronoise 2015, Maastricht
(2015).
[25] M. Kobernus, et al., A practical approach to an integrated
citizens’ observatory: The CITI-SENSE framework, I: Proceed-
ings of the Workshop ’Environmental Information Systems and
Services - Infrastructures and Platforms 2013’ (ENVIP 2013).
Neusiedl am See, Austria, October 10, 2013. Red.: Berre, A.J.,
Schade, S. (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1322).
[26] I. Aspuru, J.A. Acero, M. Gonzalez, Apps to encourage Citizen
environmental participation in public space strategy and policy
making, Smart City Expo World Congress 2014 Barcelona (2014).
[27] Global citizen observatory - The role of individuals in ob-
serving and understanding our changing world (Euro-
pean Environment Agency, 2009): http://www.eea.europa.
eu/pressroom/speeches/global-citizen-observatory-the-role-
of-individuals-in-observing-and-understanding-our-changing-
world
263
[28] M. Engelken-Jorge, J. Moreno, H. Keune, W. Verheyden, A.
Bartonova, CITI-SENSE consortium, Developing Citizens’ Obser-
vatories for Environmental Monitoring and Citizen Empower-
ment: Challenges and Future Scenarios, I: Proceedings of the
International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Govern-
ment (CeDEM14). Danube University Krems, Austria, May 21–23,
2014. Editors: Peter Parycek, Noella Edelmann, pp. 49–61.
[29] J. Fogola, S. Masera, V. Bevacqua, Smartphone as a noise level
meter? Proceedings of the ICSV 22, Florence, July, 2015.
[30] ISO 12913:2:2016 Acoustics – Soundscape – Part 2: Data Collec-
tion (DRAFT).
[31] I. Aspuru, I. García, K. Herranz-Pascual, A. Santander, CITI-
SENSE: methods and tools for empowering citizens to observe
acoustic comfort in outdoor public spaces, Noise Mapp 3 (2016),
37–48.
[32] C. Osgood, G. Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, The measurement of
meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1957.